United States v. Garrison
| Decision Date | 29 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-5753,19-5753 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMAR GARRISON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0720n.06
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This case arises out of a traffic stop of a rented truck that revealed a pistol and thirteen individual baggies of controlled substances hidden away. Garrison, the sole occupant, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime—violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) respectively. He was sentenced, with an Armed Career Criminal enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) and (e), to the statutory minimum of fifteen years in prison for Count 1, a concurrent fifteen years for Count 2, and a consecutive five years as the statutory minimum for Count 3. His aggregate sentence was twenty years of imprisonment with six years of supervised release.
Garrison brings this appeal asserting deficiencies in both the trial and sentence. He claims: The Government suppressed two documents in violation of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; the district court abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a witness; the Government knowingly presented false testimony; the indictment and jury instructions were flawed; and his sentence was procedurally unreasonable.
The most plausible allegation that would warrant a new trial is that the Government committed a Brady violation through its belated disclosure of a fingerprint report showing that no identifiable prints were found on the gun. Whether intentional or not, withholding the report during pretrial discovery was inappropriate, but it does not warrant a new trial. Because none of Garrison's claims demonstrate a reversable error in the trial, we affirm his conviction and sentence in full.
On the night of December 29, 2017, Louisville Metro Police (LMP) officers pulled over Garrison while he was driving a rental pickup truck in downtown Louisville. He did not signal while changing lanes and drove by another unmarked police car, "nearly clipping [its] windows," so the police officers activated their lights and sirens. The car slowly came to a stop. Three officers approached the truck with suspicion because of its dark-tinted windows and the "abnormally long" time it took to roll to a stop. From experience, they knew that slow stops and dark windows often came hand-in-hand with drugs.
One officer approached the driver's window and asked Garrison if he knew why he was stopped and if there were any guns or drugs in the truck. Garrison responded and produced a baggie of marijuana. The officer told him to get out of the truck. As Garrison exited, a "corner baggy"—similar to those used to transport small quantities of drugs—with the remnants of an unknown substance fell to the ground.
After Garrison moved to the back of the truck, another LMP officer patted him down and found two bundles of cash totaling $3,397 and a bottle that appeared to contain codeine. Then, two police officers began to search the truck while Garrison watched. Even as other officers tried to speak to him, he kept turning to observe the vehicle search. Despite the cold weather, Garrison was "sweating profusely" as he continued to watch the officers closely, particularly when they neared the driver's side door. Inside the truck, the officers observed "tooling marks" on the driver's side door and found a screwdriver in the cabin.
Another officer in a narcotics mobile canine unit heard of the event on the radio and came to the scene as support. After being informed that a small quantity of drugs was found on Garrison, he directed his dog to search the truck. The narcotics officer similarly observed Garrison's physical signs of nervousness as well as the screwdriver and tooling marks on the driver's side door control panel. The dog alerted to the door, and an officer removed the control panel. In the empty space below, he found a pistol and thirteen individually knotted baggies containing substances that turned out to be heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine.
Garrison's arrest and the search of the pickup were captured in the arresting officers' bodycam videos. The police took pictures of the vehicle, gun, and drugs. They also sent the pistol to be tested for functionality and fingerprints, and the narcotics to a chemical lab.
Later that night, when Garrison was in jail, he made a phone call. The recorded call expressed his disbelief that the police were able to search inside the driver's side door and that he didn't know they could do that.
Federal authorities took over the state investigation and indicted Garrison on May 23, 2018. The Government charged him with three counts: Count 1, possession of a firearm by a prohibitedperson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e); Count 2, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and Count 3, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
At Garrison's arraignment, the district court ordered the prosecutor to provide pretrial discovery and inspection for "all matter subject to disclosure under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16" upon Garrison's request. The order expressly mentioned Brady, Giglio, and Jencks Act material that was discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1). Garrison filed a pretrial motion for disclosure of exculpatory and impeaching information pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1) and Brady, requesting seven types of material. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The court granted only the request for the seventh category, related to "[a]ny and all physical evidence, including but not limited to records and photos."
The trial began on July 24, 2018, and lasted three days. The Government's case consisted of testimony and bodycam footage from the officers involved in the arrest. The testimony was accompanied by videos and pictures from that night. The Government also introduced Garrison's recorded call from jail where he expressed his shock that officers could search inside the panel of the door.
On the second day of the trial, Garrison asked Detective Crawford—one of the police officers who conducted the arrest—if "the government has ever attempted to fingerprint the firearm." He responded, "I believe they did, sir." Garrison continued his line of questions but later, during a recess, raised before the judge the Government's failure to disclose a fingerprint report. The Government responded that it did not believe there was one. During the lunch break, the Government located the report and turned it over. The test showed a "negative result," whichmeans no identifiable prints were found on the gun. The court offered to let Garrison recall the last witness for further questioning.
Garrison did not recall Det. Crawford, but Special Agent Hicks discussed the report and its significance more extensively during his testimony. Agent Hicks—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms case agent responsible for the investigation—explained that it was common for fingerprint tests to produce negative results and that the report did not rule out anyone from having held the weapon. Garrison asked him about the report on cross-examination.
The Government also called Det. McKinney, who described his experience as a narcotics investigator for LMP. Det. McKinney did not have knowledge of Garrison's case, but testified to common practices of drug dealers and addicts. He testified that dealers often drive vehicles rented in the name of others, with dark-tinted windows, and carry weapons. This practice has the benefit of not alerting authorities if the police run the plates, even if the driver has a record. Det. McKinney also stated it was common for dealers to carry a small bag of drugs on their person while keeping the rest hidden in a stash to avoid detection. Yet, unlike dealers, it would be very unlikely for an addict to have more than a day's worth of heroin because the temptation would be to use it.
Two witnesses testified to renting the pickup truck at issue. Only one, Phillip White, said he drove the vehicle at all, and that was only briefly after picking it up from the rental lot. Outside of the initial rental by White, neither he nor Patrick Bullington admitted to driving the vehicle at all, and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. White initially rented the truck at Garrison's request on December 4, 2017, but asked Garrison to get it out of his name after a dispute.
On December 21, Garrison asked Bullington to rent the vehicle in Bullington's name in exchange for half a gram of heroin. This date was corroborated by a rental receipt and referenceto a number of phone calls between Garrison and Bullington on that day. Bullington stated that Garrison had given him money and instructed him to get money orders and bring them to the rental agency, where he filled out forms. Bullington never drove the truck and said he was only in it on the occasions he met with Garrison. Bullington further explained that he was addicted to pain pills and heroin and rented the truck in exchange for narcotics.
On cross-examination, Garrison questioned Bullington about his criminal record and addiction. Bullington was not sure about all the details of his criminal record but said that he believed he was charged with a felony and later that he thought it was a "theft charge." The Government objected that questions regarding his prior convictions were an improper impeachment method. Garrison argued that questions about the...
To continue reading
Request your trial